9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms in the impugned order, the same is set aside - appeal allowed. - Application No. C/Misc/86308/2018 And Appeal No. C/88426/2018 - A/85328/2019 - Dated:- 19-2-2019 - Mr C J Mathew, Member (Technical) And Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati, Member (Judicial) Shri Prakash Shah, Advocate for the appellant Shri R. Kumar, AC (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per: C J Mathew This appeal of M/s Geeta Clearing Forwarding Agencies Pvt Ltd lies against order no. 10/CAC/PCC(G)/SKD/CBS (Admn) dated 23rd July 2018 of Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai issued under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013 in proceedings that had been initiated under the Custom House Agent Licensing Regulation, 2004. A miscellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertake necessary antecedent check would not sustain. It appears to us, therefore, that this charge has been levelled, and held, against the appellant without proper application of mind and in a routine manner. Under regulation 11(d), a custom broker is required to advise the client to act in compliance with Customs Act, 1962. We find no evidence of any act on the part of the appellant to suggest that any advice to the contrary had been offered. The description of the goods in the shipping bill is not in dispute; neither is the value. The entire case appears to hinge on the interpretation of whether the said botanical description in the shipping bills is the very same 'red sanders' that is, admittedly, banned for export. According to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not to a contracted service centre. The check list cannot be said to constitute the shipping bill or the annexure referred to in regulation 17 of the said Regulations. Accordingly, an authorisation issued to a G card holder for this limited purpose is not incongruent with the mores prescribed in regulation 17; deployment of persons does not constitute such breach as to warrant extreme the penalty. 6. On the submission of the Learned Counsel that the penalty under Customs Act, 1962 against the same appellant was dropped by the first appellate authority prescribed therein vide order dated 21st September 2017, we find that the present proceedings, based as it is on the same evidence and the same statement, that were found to have failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
